more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
I do not know what could be meant by saying it was someone's duty to do something unless there was an attempt to show why it mattered if this sort of thing was not done.
Gist of Idea
We can't affirm a duty without saying why it matters if it is not performed
Source
Philippa Foot (Moral Arguments [1958], p.105)
Book Ref
Foot,Philippa: 'Virtues and Vices' [Blackwell 1981], p.105
A Reaction
The Kantian idea assumes that duty is an absolute, and yet each duty rests on a particular maxim which is going to be universalised. So why should that maxim be universalised, and not some other?
Related Idea
Idea 22262 Kant's moral law has no foundation - because that would undermine its priority [Sandel]
| 22377 | Whether someone is rude is judged by agreed criteria, so the facts dictate the value [Foot] |
| 22378 | We can't affirm a duty without saying why it matters if it is not performed [Foot] |
| 22375 | Moral judgements need more than the relevant facts, if the same facts lead to 'x is good' and 'x is bad' [Foot] |
| 22376 | Facts and values are connected if we cannot choose what counts as evidence of rightness [Foot] |